Dangerous thoughts about glass, and a couple of questions
boris71 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 01:11:44 EDT 2009
William Robb wrote:
> I recall posting about this just after I got my first 77. I thought it
> was an amazing lens for general photography, but I absolutely hated it
> for portraiture.
> After looking at many pictures that I shot with it, I decided that what
> I didn't like was, for lack of clearer terminology, it had too much
> microcontrast, and was just too damned sharp.
Interestingly enough, yesterday I shot a couple of Galia's portraits
with FA 31 Ltd at f/3.5 from distance of 2 meters or so. I had to dial
-17 of clarity because pictures were too sharp. Notably, K-7 focused
extremely precisely in rather low light of just two 60W tungsten lamps.
Mind you, at -17 clarity there is no post-processing soft effect
whatsoever. Pictures look very sharp even then.
> The 31 shares a lot of similarities with the 77, high sharpness, lots of
> contrast and excellent out of focus rendering.
Yes, when I started with FA limited, I often said that the lenses
compensated nicely for lack of my skill... They probably do so today as
More information about the PDML